Preservation Board weighs decision on arts center

Tear down the house, eliminate the tennis court, remove the paved driveway, convert the house to an arts center, plant a community garden, and build a kayak dock. 

All have been proposed for use of the property at 7 South Cartwright Road purchased for $3.9 million with Community Preservation Funds. From the time the CPF first won Town Board approval for the purchase, the decision has been enmeshed in controversy.

It continued last week at a CPF discussion aimed at focusing on a proposal to use the house and garage for an arts center.

Some see the idea as an opportunity for use by the whole community, while critics say the property is already developed with a house, tennis court and paved driveway, which means it fails to meet requirements of sites meant to be preserved land for passive recreational activities.

No decision on any use has been reached. Following a presentation by members of the fledgling Shelter Island Arts Center (SIAC) group outlining plans, internal changes to the house to accommodate that use and financing to pay for any changes were the subject of an extensive debate.

CPF Chairman Twoey Brayson laid down the rules, telling the assembled speakers comments were to deal only with the arts center project. Other proposals would be addressed separately. For the most part, speakers complied with his instructions. He also said if any use of the property required changes, such as renovations if the house remains, or a fence around a proposed community garden, no CPF money could be used for that work.

“There are stern regulations about what CPF can pay for,” Mr. Brayson said.

Artist June Shatken outlined what she and others in the SIAC have in mind. The arts enrich lives and widen perspectives, Ms. Shatken said. In a community filled with artists of all types of work, the center would embrace painting, poetry, photography, writing, quilting, pottery, jewelry making and sewing.

The vision is to have space where artists can interact and inspire one another and offer small classes in various disciplines. There would be gatherings featuring artists speaking about their crafts and a place where the public would perhaps be inspired to become creative themselves. “I’m a big believer in something called synchronicity,” Ms. Shatken said, explaining the coincidence of occurrences coming together for a specific reason. 

Catherine Corry, a member of the SIAC Board, described the types of art to be presented, exhibit spaces and fundraising efforts. She noted that Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) has been an enthusiastic supporter of the arts, making grant money available to encourage creativity.

Fundraising efforts would pay for internal renovations, including widening doorways to make the house handicapped accessible.

Three factors make the choice of an arts center a positive use of the space, the SIAC maintains:

• It would be a low impact use of the space without major changes.

• There would be no need to modify the meadow or waterfront that could accommodate other uses.

• It would be a model from an ecological perspective.

Ms. Corry outlined use of green, non-toxic materials that would be an example of how to do art in a sound ecological way.

Others, both artists and non-artists, embraced the choice, hoping to convince CPF members to recommend the project.

But several — again, both artists and non-artists — voiced strong opposition. There were charges the CPF Advisory Board and Town Board had put money into the effort when neither has been true, Mr. Brayson said. Some insisted the decision to create an arts center on the property had already been signed, sealed and delivered, again something Mr. Brayson said was not true.

There were accusations that despite the claims about using non-toxic materials, there would be toxins seeping into groundwater and the aquifer. There were calls for locating an arts center in the Town’s Center area where it would be accessible to students and the elderly population.

“I think this needs a lot more examination,” Joy Bausman told the CPF Advisory Board.

Jean Lawless pronounced herself the protector of wildlife on the Island and said the Cartwright site is home to much wildlife that would be threatened by lights and traffic, insisting the Advisory Board reject the art center. Similar words came from Steve and Pat Lenox, who have enjoyed watching deer, geese and other animals in the area.

Mr. Lenox said the house is in terrible shape and he’s been told it should be knocked down because costs of bringing it up to code would be prohibitive.

Stephen Jacobs called the site “a magnificent property” but with an array of problems, starting with whether supporting the art center use is a legal use of CPF money. He urged the CPF Advisory Board to get a legal decision about what could be done on a CPF-purchased property. 

Is an arts center the most appropriate use of the site and what would the Town’s responsibility, obligations and exposure be, Mr. Jacobs asked.

Calling the site “very pristine,” Pam Demarest said the house should be torn down. Jan Sudol predicted it could cost thousands or even millions to bring the house up to code and predicted expenses would eventually fall to taxpayers. 

The CPF Advisory Board remained silent about all they heard as members consider the opposing views.